The Fraud of Freud

I first read Freud’s writings when, probably unconsciously, I believed that if everybody says the same thing, it must be true.

Freud’s extraordinary theories and mystifying lingo had many admirers and promoters. Just as one example, Eugene Goodheart, professor at Brandeis University, says, “Freud’s sheer power of narration provides a kind of emotional truth that we could ill afford to forego.” And, “Freud’s achievement occurs in the company of the great masters of modern literature,” etc.

At the time, I thought I would build a personal library of classical literature and other classics. Freud was one of the authors suggested by experts.

Without Internet, as yet, it was common to follow, somewhat uncritically, fashionable ideas, especially if spoken-of glowingly by the mass media and other “prestigious” venues that impose the dominion of a name. Besides, Freudian psychoanalysis was promoted and paraded to the uninformed as a revolutionary method to correct what is wrong in men, and therefore in society.

Even then, however, I found irony in Freud’s extraordinary popularity and fame. Independently of any truth contained therein, psychological language and terminology is amusing, not to say ridiculous. For it elevates what is directly comprehensible, and even trivial, to the level of scholarly erudition. Therefore it creates a (false) impression of an enhanced conceptual and scientific precision even in what is dramatically obvious.

A trivial thought expressed in pompous diction, tends to impress more than an important sentiment delivered in simple language; because the number is greater of those whom custom has enabled to judge of words, than of those whom study has qualified to examine things.

Transported into a corporate environment, Freudian lingo becomes “managerese.” Besides, using bloated words and phrasing to hide conceit or fraud has a long tradition. Even in Hamlet, a character named Osric attempts to impress or frighten Hamlet by describing the strength and qualities of his adversary Laertes. And he concludes, “…to divide him (Laertes), inventorially would dizzy the arithmetic of memory.” And Hamlet replies, ““Sir, his definement suffers no perdition in you; though, I know, to divide him inventorially would dizzy the arithmetic of memory… but in the verity of extolment, I take him to be a soul of great article…” (1)

But returning to my first impression of Freud’s writings, “I have chosen the wrong career – I said to myself – here is an easy way to make big bucks on the cheap.” Say what everyone understands in pompous, clinical-sounding, academic and pseudo-scientific language and you have it made. Why spend years in attempting to understand abstruse scientific concepts, described in words much harder to understand than any Freudian language?

Consider, as an example of hard-to-comprehend ideas, complex numbers, in turn derived from inventing an imaginary solution for an unsolvable mathematical equation. And yet having to accept, understand, remember and use complex numbers to describe the behavior of electric currents.

Or worse, take the case of integrals, single, double and triple. The triple integral, which, in conjunction with one of Kepler’s laws, enabled scientists to figure out the density of the asteroid Eros, millions of miles away, and the loci of the elliptical orbit followed by a smaller satellite orbiting Eros.

But I digress. Even a cursory investigation of Freud’s life, claims, “therapeutic” medical treatments and case studies leaves the investigator speechless. He wonders how such craven madness, treachery, stupidity, not to say criminality, could ever have been considered credible, let alone “medical” in the honest and commonly understood meaning of the term.

Some may ask why talk about Freud now when so many other issues crowd our tangled world. Because the ideas of Freud and of his nephew Edward Bernays, as we will see, still inspire the spirit of our times. Including a top-down ideology, imposed on the world at large by the hegemonic media, Hollywood and other trend-setting, cultural, academic and political sources – and even affecting, in some cases, the judicial system.

It is not generally known that followers and heirs of the Freudian “scientific” doctrine have locked away a large number of Freud’s papers and letters in the Library of Congress, not to be accessed before the 22nd century.

Why the secrecy? While we can only speculate, what escaped sequestration should give us clues.

Here are very few among many possible examples. Take Freud’s friend and “scientist” colleague Wilhelm Fliess, who was a protagonist in the “clinical” case of Emma Eckstein, a 27-year old patient of both Fliess and Freud.

Fliess had invented the “theory of periodicity,” whereby men and women go through “sexual” cycles of 23 and 28 days respectively. He also discovered what he called a correspondence between the nose and the genitals. Fliess even operated on Freud’s nose to cure him of neurosis. In turn, Freud went as far as calling Fliess, “the Kepler of biology (!).”

Freud determined that patient Emma Eckstein was “bleeding with love” for himself, Mr. Freud. Since he actually wrote this down, we may assume that he documented his diagnosis because he imagined it to be received with implicit veneration.

Indeed, the patient was bleeding from the nose, but not for love. Having been referred to Fliess by Freud, Fliess had conducted an experimental nasal operation to cure Eckstein of her “nasal-genital reflex neurosis,” as Fliess called it. After which, he forgot to remove about 3 feet of gauze, left within the cavities of what remained of Emma’s nose.

Another case, rediscovered from a cache of letters, involves Horace Frink, a psychoanalyst himself and another of Freud’s patient. Frink was having an affair with a patient of his own, the bank heiress Angelika Bijur. Despite this, Freud convinced Frink that he, Frink, was a latent homosexual, running the risk of becoming openly so. The “Freudian” cure? Frink should divorce his unsuitable wife and marry the patient Bijur. Simultaneously, Bijur was to divorce her unsuitable husband. Freud had never met either Frink’s wife or Bijur’s husband – which makes Freud’s telepathic psychological insight almost miraculous.

But why these extraordinary suggestions? Simple. Freud hoped to acquire some of Bijur’s money. For in a letter to Frink he says, “Your complaint that you cannot grasp your homosexuality implies that you are not yet aware of your fantasy of making me a rich man. If matters turn out all right let us change this imaginary fantasy into a real contribution to the “Psychoanalytic Foundation.”

What happened in the end? Both Frink and Bijur divorced and remarried according to Freud’s “diagnosis” and “cure.” The two abandoned and devastated spouses soon died. In turn, Frink’s new wife soon filed for divorce. And Frink, now guilt-ridden, fell into a psychotic depression for the rest of his life, marked by several attempts at suicide.

Apparently, Freud felt no regret for having destroyed, in this instance, four lives. From several remarks, in his extant letters, he seemed quite indifferent to his patients’ suffering and to the Freud-induced doubts of their self-worth. According to him, all his patients’ problems were due to their inability to “recover” their sexual memories and traumas suffered in early childhood.

The cases of Emma Eckstein and Harry Frink also share a characteristic, common throughout Freud’s so-called psychoanalytic work. That is, a boundless fertility of invention and a remarkable coincidence between his diagnoses and his direct self-interest. Plus an ego of immeasurable dimensions and evidence of a ludicrous something, which he dared to call “medicine,” as he constantly refers to his work as “clinical.”

Furthermore, in the instance of Emma Eckstein, by diagnosing her nose bleeding as love for himself, Freud freed both “doctors” from any responsibility. Himself, for having recommended the mad nose operation, and Fliess for having performed it.

In the other case, or saga, of Frink-Bijur, Freud had ordered all related correspondence destroyed, but we owe its survival to Marie Bonaparte, great grand-niece of Napoleon I. An author and psychoanalyst herself, she helped Freud to leave Germany when the Nazis came to power. She also bought the letters Freud wrote to Fliess (in the case of Emma Eckstein), and refused to destroy them when Freud asked her to. Bonaparte had first consulted with Freud for treatment of her frigidity, or rather of her inability to reach sexual satisfaction – though beside a husband, she had several lovers.

As a historical aside, in 1952, Marie and her husband represented their nephew, King Paul of Greece, at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in London. Sitting next to Marie Bonaparte was the future president of France, Francois Mitterrand. Bored with the pageantry, Marie suggested to Mitterrand that he sample her psychoanalytic method. Mitterrand obliged and both missed much of the pomp and ceremony they had come to witness.

Here is another most egregious example – the case of the so-called Wolf Man. The Wolf Man was actually a Russian émigré and “patient” of Freud, named Sergei Pankeev.

In 1918 Freud claimed to have removed all Pankeev’s symptoms and inhibitions. And thanks to what happened next, Pankeev became one of the most celebrated patients whom Freud “cured.”

Freud first diagnosed Pankeev as a sufferer of what he called the “Russian national character, or inwardness.” Accordingly, “Russische Innerlichheit” explained Pankeev’s reluctance and initial rejection of psychoanalytical treatment.

Incidentally, Freud’s prejudice or generalizations about his perception of the Russian character are explained in his book titled “Dostoyevsky and Parricide.” For the record, Dostoyevski did not kill his father nor – good for him – he was or had been a Freud’s patient.

Dostoyevsky suffered from epilepsy. And even today, notwithstanding the large volume of research conducted and material published on the subject, the most widely accepted description of epilepsy is, “A disorder in which nerve cell activity in the brain is disturbed, causing seizures.” And for which “treatment can help, but this condition can’t be cured.”

As for causes, modern medicine is as tentative as it was long ago. Reading from a medical encyclopedia, “Epilepsy may occur as a result of a genetic disorder or an acquired brain injury, such as a trauma or stroke. During a seizure, a person experiences abnormal behavior, symptoms, and sensations, sometimes including loss of consciousness. There are few symptoms between seizures. Epilepsy is usually treated by medications and in some cases by surgery, devices, or dietary changes.”

Freud disliked Dostoyevsky because of the novels Dostoyevsky wrote. As for the epilepsy, never mind that Dostoyevsky experienced living within minutes of being shot by an execution squad, before his sentence was commuted.

Such an event could traumatize the most stoic among us, and be a sufficient clue for his subsequent state of body and mind, including maybe epilepsy. But according to Freud, Dostoyevsky did not suffer from epilepsy but from hysteria. Which, in turn, came about from a “primal scene.” Or rather, from Dostoyevsky having discovered “female castration,” after witnessing an act of parental intercourse.

Which led Freud to conclude that “all those illnesses called hysteroepilepsis are simply hysterias.” Notice the verbal trick and chicanery looming large in this and in some other Freud’s theories, cases and conclusions. He invents “hysteroepilepsis” so as to substitute “hysteria” for “epilepsy.” Epilepsy was not curable then and now, but having Freud found the cure for hysteria, it was implicit that “histeroepilepsis” would be equally healed.

Back to Sergei Pankeev, the “Wolf Man” and his initial reluctance to undertake Freud’s psychoanalytic treatment. After what we can call a campaign of persuasion, and given Freud’s ascendant among the illuminati of the time, Pankeev became a Freud’s patient and undertook “treatment.”

On Freud’s advice during the opening sessions of the consultation, Pankeev did not return to Russia to recover or deal with his estate, before the Bolsheviks seized it. He therefore lost most of his possessions.

But after a few sessions Freud declared Pankeev “cured.” Malicious minds may attribute the rapidity of the cure to the patient’s inability to pay for the treatment.

Nevertheless, in the persona of a famous charity patient cured by Freud, Pankeev started signing his letters as “Wolfsmann.” In reality, Pankeev was anything but cured, and Freud even offered him not only to continue to cure him for free, but even a pension, as long as he did not tell his story to outsiders.

But Pankeev did not accept, and in an interview with a journalist in the 1970s said, “the whole thing was a catastrophe. I am in the same state when I first came to Freud, and Freud is no more.” (Freud died in 1939).

Still, the saga of the Wolf Man is linked to Freud’s intervening disagreement with two other notorious writers, analysts and psychiatrists, Carl Jung and Alfred Adler. Jung and Adler denied the importance of infantile sexuality in the development of neurosis. In turn, the Wolf Man became the medium and tool with which Freud would convince the world that he, Freud, was right and his critics wrong.

To do so Freud wanted to discover a Pankeev’s “primal scene,” totally invented, as with Dostoyevsky. Quite simple, actually. Freud made the Wolf Man remember a dream from the age of four. – a feat in itself already suspicious. I don’t know about others but, after some time has elapsed, I have no recollection whatsoever of my dreams, including the rare cases when I wrote them down. And it is only when I happen to read the related notes that I remember having dreamt that dream. Anything not written remains unremembered, except realizing that the notes only captured a small part of the dream.

Anyway, Pankeev’s remembered dream, extracted by Freud, had to do with three white wolves standing in the daylight, and later downgraded to white dogs.

In Freud’s interpretation, forced upon the helpless Wolf Man, the wolves were his parents; their whiteness meant bedclothes; their stillness meant the opposite, coital motion; their tails castration. That they were seen in daylight really meant night, a fact that some internal repression caused the Wolf Man not to admit. Why the repression? Because the dream was actually the representation of what the patient saw at his young age, his parents copulating three times in the style of dogs, while he, the child, horrified, soiled himself in the crib.

Freud’s interpretation is baloney, or sick or, as loyal Freudians describe, it “exposes much of Freud’s inventiveness.” Or even better, “it exceeds the ingenious staging of any pornographic film producer” as another Freudian psychoanalyst wrote in a comment.

Furthermore, Freud never convinced the Wolf Man that the sick “primal” experience ever took place. For Pankeev belonged to the Russian nobility and, when interviewed about the alleged primal scene, he said that, given the habits of the nobility, he could not have slept in the same room as his parents.

In one illuminating statement Freud writes, “These scenes from infancy, are not reproduced during the treatment as recollections, they are the product of construction” (translation, “I make them up”).

Furthermore, it appears that Freud was obsessed with copulation from the rear and with sexual initiation of children from servant girls – something he also attempted to convince the Wolf Man of having been subjected to.

On balance, according to those who have read much more of Freud than I did, “the reviews of all the major case histories compose a uniform picture of forced interpretation, indifferent or negative therapeutic results, and an opportunistic approach to truth” (translation, the whole thing is a hoax and a fraud.)

What strikes the reader is Freud’s shamelessness in writing about his “cases.” As with the following and last example, dealing with Dora (in life Ida Bauer, a case later used as a model in psychoanalytical training.)

Dora lived with her parents who were friends with another couple, Herr and Frau K. Here Freud used initials and pseudonyms for his patients, after he decided to describe the case and the “treatment” for the benefit of his disciples and the public.

Dora’s father brought her to Freud when she claimed that Herr K. had made a sexual advance to her, at which she slapped his face. Herr K. denied it, her father did not believe her, hence the visit to Freud.

Pressed by Freud on the issue, Dora suggested that her father had a relationship with Frau K. By his disbelief, her own father was somehow making up for his relationship with the wife of the molester.

During his “treatment,” Freud tried to convince Dora that she herself was implicated in the contorted relationships between the two families. Apparently attracted by the 18 year old patient, Freud forced his trademark prurient suggestions upon Dora. Then he tried to convince her that she herself was repressing her latent homosexuality, as well as her memories of childhood masturbation and of the primal scene (as with the case of the Wolf Man). Her psychological situation was, therefore, the consequence of her past “repressions.”

But the young Dora had sufficient self-respect to see through Freud’s morbid perversion and had the strength to quit.

In his explanation of the case, Freud thought that Dora repressed a sexual desire for her father, a desire for Herr K, and even a desire for Frau K. When Dora abruptly broke off her therapy, much to Freud’s disappointment, Freud saw this as his failure as an analyst. But he did not attribute the failure to his sick attempts at seducing Dora, but to his having ignored the transference (which is psychoanalytical lingo for saying that Dora had also fallen in love with Freud.)

This article would become a large treatise, if even only a fraction of other “cases” were reported, along with their wacky “Freudian” explanations, or, more plainly, frauds. And yet Freudian psychoanalysis not only has defenders, but finds its way even into the judicial system. In the recent past, it has caused the conviction of innocent defendants, based on the “testimony” of people of questionable stability of mind, who were induced by psychoanalysts to believe in presumed repressed recollection of dreams, related to infant abuse by the person whom the jury would eventually convict.

Yet Freud has strenuous defenders and here is an example. Psychiatrist Jonathan Lear says that “refutation of psychoanalysis would be possible if people always and everywhere acted in rational and transparently explicable ways.” Translation, whenever anyone acts oddly or seems weird, the cause has to do with repressed Oedipal complexes and disturbing sexual images from early childhood.

This same Lear claims that “psychoanalysis is crucial for a truly democratic culture to survive” (!) According to Lear it is a mistake to judge Freud by applying the standard criteria of science or even medicine. For there is a distinction, he says, between scientists and “founders of discursivity” (sic), of whom Freud is the master example. What distinguishes “founders of discursivity” from other thinkers is that, “They are not required to conform to the criteria of science. Their own discourse constitutes the canon that determines its true value.” Translation, bullshit is OK if uttered by a “founder of discursivity.”

Readers who read so far may wonder if I am making all this up, but I am not. In fact, in some quarters, the idea of “discursivity” is quite acceptable. For example, when the US invaded and destroyed Iraq, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration. To a journalist who had (still) the guts to ask how could his statements about Iraq be true, when real evidence would contradict them, Rumsfeld replied, “We create our own reality.” Freudianly speaking, Rumsfeld too was a founder of ‘discursivity.’

Nor we need to go far to find other current “founders of discursivity.” Take the notion that Russia influenced the most recent presidential elections – in a country, the US, profoundly uninterested in geography and international things at large.

But it doesn’t matter. Political hackers “create their own reality,” and, who knows, unbelievers and disbelievers suffer from Oedipal complexes, triggered by sexual images acquired in infancy and then repressed. Images that only a “Freudian” psychiatrist can induce most of us unbelievers to recover.

We may think that the morbid, decadent and corrosive ideology of Freudianism only affects that branch of medicine called psychiatry (whose etymological meaning is “medicine of the soul.”) As if for millennia various religions had not attempted to address in multiple ways what we can broadly call the dilemmas and of life. For indeed, “Nothing can we call our own but death and that small model of the barren earth, which serves as paste and cover to our bones.”

Psychiatry, of which psychoanalysis is a critical branch, is anything but a “medicine of the soul”, and affects indirectly other branches of medicine.

It is not fortuitous that the US spends more in treatment and medicines per inhabitant than any other country. For in the end, what strikes an unsophisticated observer like myself is the implied and untold assumption that, just as medicine of the body suggests or assumes an indefinite possible extension of life, psychiatry suggests or promises a foreseeable conquest of happiness, or at the very least, the taming of unhappiness.

As we know, neither assumption is true. Both are, historically, the consequence of another overarching assumption, born out of the Age of Reason. That is, the Illuminist faith in indefinite progress, and faith in the undeclared son of progress, the exponential growth of everything, including health, length of life and happiness.

Furthermore, one of the more stubborn prejudices about the pre-industrial era is that life was then very short, namely 34 years for women and 28 for men. That may have been arithmetically true but the statistic is misleading. What skewed the numbers was the extremely high infant mortality. This harsh natural selection left alive only the strongest, but in the rural countries of the ‘700, men and women died in their ‘90s. For example, in a study of the French region of Burgundy in 1786, on a total of about one million people 72,000 persons had an age between 60 and 100 years old.

And to quote one of many historical examples and figures, Venetian Nobleman Alvise Cornaro (1484-1566), practiced and published his “Discourses About the Secrets of Living Long and Well.” He died at 82.

As for the soul, religions and priests, in one way or another, performed the functions of current psychiatry and psychiatrists.

And here is another relevant historical consideration. As we know, developments in one scientific or technological field influence other disciplines, even when those developments are not applicable, or possibly applicable but with many limitations.

For example, the industrial revolution and the related triumph of machinery, gradually led to the idea that the body itself is machine, made up of independent replaceable parts. Hence, what to a car is the garage and a mechanic, to a man is the hospital and a doctor.

Many authoritative voices dispute the validity of the analogy – though enormous business interests keep the belief alive.

As we have seen with Freud, psychiatry may be even worse. For in the collective consciousness, the ‘pursuit of happiness’ has evolved into a ‘right to happiness’ – ignoring the inevitable, namely that at times, we all are forced to “make dust our paper and with rainy eyes write sorrow on the bosom of the earth.”

Currently, given the exposure given to the Freudian fraud, psychoanalysis has somewhat receded as an accepted method to ‘cure the soul’ and to ensure the right to happiness.

A simpler treatment, if not worse than Freudian psychoanalysis, consists of prescription medications, such as Oxycontin, a drug that made the Sackler family billionaires. Oxycontin was initially sanctioned as ‘safe’ and ‘not addictive. ’ But addictive it is and, according to statistics, Oxycontin and other similar opiods kill over 60,000 people per year, in the US alone.

Readers may yet ask a question. How can so many people be persuaded to practice self-destruction? The answers brings Freud again into the picture, or rather his nephew, whose name is gradually becoming familiar to many, namely, Edward Bernays and his techniques.

Here is one Bernay’s example of self-destruction promoted at large. Though well aware of the damage and danger caused by smoking, Bernays convinced women to smoke by promoting cigarettes as “torches of freedom.” In the notorious Macy’s parade in New York, one of the floats hosted a bunch of appealing debutantes who would synchronously lift lighted cigarettes in the air, as ‘symbols of freedom’.

As per Bernays, “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

In turn, Bernays did but give practical expression and application to the Illuminist tradition of controlling people through their passions, without the affected person knowing of being controlled.

No doubt, mass media observers have already drawn their own conclusions. Those who “control and regiment the masses according to their will without the masses knowing it,” understand that Bernay’s formula can only be successful if no different or dissenting voices are heard.

It is no wonder then that the cabal in power is hard at work to censure and un-neutralize the Internet, as a means to silence conscientious objectors to the distortion and prostitution of the truth. For those monsters of iniquity some facts are too dangerous to be known.

In conclusion, Freud, Bernays, Sackler and similar are examples, emblems and practitioners of destruction, of the human soul and body. To them we can say individually what Thersites said of Diomedes, “I will no more trust him when he leers, than I will a serpent when he hisses.”

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

108 Comments

Freud is easy to understand. Just another whacked out, perverted faux sage of the Luciferian tribal cabal, promoted by the same, who have used their financial swindles to dominate the media and academe for many, many generations.

Freud, Einstein, and many of the leaders of Communism of that era were promoted as geniuses by the Jewish dominated media and publishing industry. It was all part of the myth to portray Jews as a superior race. Both Jews and gentiles bought into the delusion; And that’s how we end up with apartheid fascism in Israel and Anti-Christian Zionism in the US.

Many have questioned Freud’s methods and theories, openly accusing him of promoting perversion and destroying the family, the chief unit in a country. He certainly had the backing of the Zionist media in the US, just like Einstein did. As for Einstein, the media went out of the way to conceal the fact that between the two world wars, Einstein was in American academic circles the most hated “scientist” in the US, as everybody knew he stole the theory of relativity from a German scientist, whose name I forget. Einstein married a Serbian girl, Mileva Marich, who was a mathematician. It was she who did his math homework for him, as he was incapable of such endeavors, having failed his math exam in high school. In the end she divorced him, after discovering whom she married.

The special theory of relativity was largely borrowed from Henri Poincaré, who called it the “new mechanics”. Poincaré was one of the great mathematicians of the early 1900’s. Some people claim that the general theory was plagiarized from David Hilbert, also a great mathematician. Certainly Hilbert had derived all the main equations, but whether he was first, I don’t know. I am not in a position to make a judgement on it.

In fact, Einstein was a highly successful populariser of the contemporary physics ideas of others, ideas that he presented as his own. The special theory of relativity was for the most part the work of the Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, while the general theory of relativity was essentially the work the great French mathematician and physicist Jules Henri Poincaré.

Thus, of all the great ideas claimed by Einstein, what remained only was his explanation of the photoelectric effect (rightly considered to be fundamental in quantum mechanics), which he published in 1905, and for which he received the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921.

And it remained so – until about 1987, when some of Einstein’s private correspondence surfaced, triggering further historical research – and a veritable panic in the non-goyim community. It turned out, that the research paper on photoelectric effect was co-authored with Einstein’s wife (at the time) – the Serbian physicist and mathematician Mileva Marić – and that Einstein removed her name when he submitted it. Other similar facts emerged. It turned out, the “genius” was systematically plagiarising, not only Lorentz, Poincaré, and others – but even the work of his own wife.

You are perfectly correct. I am Serbian and the achievements of Mileva Marich are well known. However, she never received the credit she deserved, as she was always overshadowed by her famous husband. As for Einstein, one has to wonder what his real abilities were, since he failed his mathematics test in high school.

I read on BBC news I think about 15 years ago that Mileva did help him (there were letters found where he wrote to her about ‘our theory’ etc) and he apparently made an agreement with her that if they get the price for that theory he was to claim the credit for inventing it while she was to get money.
that article I read also mentioned that he neglected their children and he eventually married his own cousin.
My favorite part was how she out-jewed him with the money they got from selling one of their houses in Zurich. She was supposed to send him the money – but she kept it instead
I think BBC made a movie about it and Nicolle Kidman played Mileva

@Robert. For a thorough examination of the documentary evidence see Esterson; there is no evidence that Mileva co-authored any of Einstein’s papers, and the PBS broadcast is a typical example of how the MSM works to “create our own reality” — an example of what Jimmy Moglia calls Fr*ud:

It seems to me that the painful relationship between these two idealistic and progressive people, Albert and Mileva, and the tumultuous upheavals — both social, scientific, political and personal — which they lived through, has more to do with Dostoevsky and the word “psyche” in its original Greek New Testament meaning (the soul) than with the modern psyche as studied by Psychologists and researchers on Psychic Phenomena. For a dramatic exploration of their relationship I invented a “parallel” German physicist Dreistein in my play The Dicethrower. But intelligent and sympathetic as Mileva undoubtedly was, she devoted those valuable attributes to the care of her family in a wartorn world not on science, according to her son Hans.

What you have written cannot be accepted, as all the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that it was Mileva Marich who was the backbone behind her husbands work, if the “work” can be used. The fact that the American academic establishment had nothing but contempt for Einstein says plenty. Don’t forget that Mileva Marich divorced Einstein. On whose side do you think her son Hans would be, bearing in mind that Mileva Marich was Serbian Orthodox, which Einstein was not ? Yes, I am familiar that in the Hebrew faith a child’s ethnic background is ascertained through the mothers side, and not the fathers, but even so, Hans is hardly an Orthodox name.

In Serbia, the story is that she was the one behind the work. Einstein handed her the entire cash award when he received the Nobel Prize even though they had been divorced for several years. But he took all the glory.

I read I think on BBC years ago – that many documents were destroyed by Einstein’s estate – especially the ones which prove Mileva’s involvement in discovering his/their theories
I think I read that she was the first woman ever to be admitted to that university – so she probably was quite cleaver

Regarding Poincare and Lorentz, have you read E.T. Whittaker?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._T._Whittaker#Special_relativity
“In 1951 (Vol. 1) and 1953 (Vol. 2), [Whittaker] published an extended and revised edition of his book in two volumes. The second volume contains some interesting historical remarks. For example, it contains a chapter named “The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz”, where Whittaker credited Henri Poincaré and Lorentz for developing special relativity,and especially alluded to Lorentz’s 1904 paper (dated by Whittaker as 1903), Poincaré’s St. Louis speech (The Principles of Mathematical Physics) of September 1904, and Poincaré’s June 1905 paper.[9] He attributed to Einstein’s special relativity paper only little importance, which he said “set forth the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz with some amplifications, and which attracted much attention”, and he credited Einstein only with being the first to publish the correct relativistic formulas for relativistic aberration and the Doppler effect. He also attributed the formula {\displaystyle E=mc^{2}} E=mc^{2} to Poincaré.”

The “relativistic aberration” to which you refer *is* Special Relativity. It comes from the idea that the speed of light in the vacuum is constant. This was shown by a simple formula of Maxwell, wherein the speed of light is the reciprocal of the square root of the product of two constants. This gives rise to all the intriguing paradoxes of SR.

The mathematics of SR is very simple and should be taught to high school students. It is hard to see why Einstein would have needed to plagerize it. Einstein simply imagined that you have a freight car moving forward. A beam of light issues from the ceiling and strikes a mirror on the floor directly below, and is then reflected back to the source. An observer in the freight car will see a vertical line as its trajectory, whereas an observer on the train platform will see the light trajectory as a V shape as the freight car passes. Assume the speed of light c is constant, the freight car velocity is v and that the time elapsed for the round trip of the light particle is t. Draw a picture, apply the Pythagorean theorem, and bingo! You get Gamma, the “relativistic aberration.”

Working out all the consequences of this for physics is another matter. E = m c^2 requires knowledge of the derivative in high school calculus. When you apply SR to quantum mechanics you get quantum field theory (QFT) which is very difficult.

General Relativity requires some heavy duty math called tensors. It took Einstein ten years to formulate GR. There are some great introductions to all these topics in the “Demystified” series–Relativity Demystified, Quantum Physics Demystified, and Quantum Field Theory Demystified. These are aimed at laypeople, but the math is pretty demanding, since they try not to stint you on the math which is really the key to understanding. Nevertheless, if you have time on your hands, know at least up through multivariable calculus, and like a very worthy challenge, this is a good route to follow. It will give you a basis for reading the popular texts used to train physicists in these fields. The rewards are certainly worth the effort as this will give you a window on what our society is doing at its most advanced cutting edge, such as the discovery of the Higgs particle…

The problem is that Einstein never proved E = MC^2. Max Planck noticed the rather absurd error committed by Einstein in his 1905 paper and published the first correct proof. Indeed, Einstein used a Taylor expansion which he truncated after the first derivative, thus placing the whole derivation in a Galilean rather than a Lorentzian framework, rather defeating the purpose of the whole exercise. Now, where did he get the conviction that E=MC^2 was true in spite of his bogus derivation? He probably extrapolated from a fact that was hinted but not explicitly conjectured (from what I understood) in some of Pointcarré’s writings.

Then, the situation of generalized relativity is more involved. It does seem that Einstein came up with the equivalence principle (between a gravitational field and a uniformly accelerated reference framework), which laid the basis for making the initial investigation into the relativistic interpretation of uniform acceleration into a much more ambitious theory of gravitation. Then, it is quite clear that, without Hillberg’s help, Einstein would never have come up with the necessary mathematical developments. It is equally clear that Einstein published his field equations before Hillbert; but things get downright murky (if one is being charitable to Einstein and his incense bearers) concerning the proofs of Hillbert’s article (of which one copy exists in some university library), from which the parts containing the equations have been cut out, manifestly to remove some kind of evidence, at best the simultaneousness of the discovery, at worst indications that Einstein had had access to Hilbert’s proofs or manuscript and derived direct “inspiration” from them.

Now, as far as the Nobel prize is concerned, the jury strategically avoided the controversial question of the paternity of relativity theory to focus on what is usually presented as the description of an experiment (as usual, not a real experiment, just a virtual one) to show the wave-particle duality. In reality, Einstein’s prized mind experiment shows nothing of the sort; it only shows that, symmetrically to Planck’s seminal discovery that light is generated in packets (quanta), the detection of light in a photo-electric apparatus could be achieved so as to show that quanta rather than continuous quantities are being detected.

To his defense, reluctantly: Einstein refused the offer to be the first President of Israel, later given to Ben Gurion. Einstein wrote publicly his view that a “Jewish State” was a very bad idea for the world and would likely turn into the murderous disaster that we now behold.

When your country will call your enemies/targets to leave their houses to avoid being collateral casualties and when they will send millions of flyer to provide advanced noticed of where they will strike, we can discuss again.

@BF: “everybody knew he stole the theory of relativity from a German scientist, whose name I forget.”

Oh, Perleeze! “Everybody knows” means nobody knows; this is exactly what the author is talking about: the attempt to “create our own reality”. See Karl Jung’s book on Flying Saucers and the Collective Consciousness.

That German scientist was the young Fritz Hasenhorl, one of the “poor harvest” of promising men cropped by the mechanized mass slaughter known as WW1. Proto-Nazis of the 1920s missused the name of this worthy German scietist and fallen soldier to denigrate “Jewish Physics”. Any science library with a good selection of books on the History of Science will confirm that two great German physicists supported Einstein against the proto-Nazis: von Laue and Planck. I have dramatized that fascinating proto-Nazi morphosis of German physics into German Physics, “wir beschaften unser realitaet”, in my play “The Dicethrower”.

1905: Annus Mirabulus papers (where the theory was first exposed) which credited both Einstein & Maric
1921: Einstein receives Nobel
1933: Nazis came to power

How could the Nazis have controlled the narrative about Einstein? They were not in power when he published his work or when he received his award. After their defeat in WWII, the narrative was fully controlled by the USA.

@Serbian Girl. This is my reply to your very reasonable puzzlement above, and I answer it in the same spirit that you present it: as someone who writes not to denigrate Jews but to demand justice both for Serbia and for the Serbian heroine Mileva Maric. I began The Dicethrower in the late 1970s — long before the present controversy re Mileva — though it was published only in 2010. I did my best to ensure accuracy by consulting books in the Science Library at Imperial College London; yet I did not presume to intrude on the private lives of the couple, Albert & Mileva Einstein. So I invented a “parallel universe” — Universe number 3, almost like our own but not quite — in which existed a parallel couple of physicists, Albert & Mileva Dreistein. If you read The Dicethrower you will see that I regard Mileva Dreistein as an intelligent and sympathetic woman, and I regard Dreistein as a not very nice character: more or less as the real Mileva & Albert emerge from this Scientific American article which Avarachan (above) introduced:

So, I hope you believe I am on your side; however, I think the real Mileva (and Marcel Grossmann) collaborated with Albert Einstein but she was not a scientist of his calibre — nor did she want to be. Their tragedy lay far deeper than the present dispute over a whose name should also have gone on a scientific paper. If you read The Dicethrower you might agree with my conclusion (and of their son Hans): it would have been better for Einstein, for his work and for the world, if he had never left Mileva and their home in peaceful Switzerland.

Now to answer your actual query: true, their collaboration was done by 1904 — long before Hitler and the Nazis. But the anti-Jewish storm only erupted in 1923, after Einstein got the Nobel prize for photo-electricity; and even then those stuermers were still only proto-Nazis. The attack against Slavs, Jews and other untermenschen took another 10 years to develope its full virulence in the Nazi takeover of 1933; and yet another 10 years for the fully developed Nazi machine to commit its terrible genocides against Serbs, Russians and Jews. The attack on Jews has ceased, but the war against Serbs and Russians is still ongoing.

Not so. He has simply used an imprecise colloquial turn of phrase which you sought to disingenuously to exploit for your own purposes (including repetitious self-promotion and boosting of a play you once wrote). That he does not remember the name of the German scientist is merely an example of the frailty of memory. Perhaps he could look it up. You could have asked him to do that, or failing that, you could have asked he elaborate a little further so you could check for yourself. But no…

There are several candidates, any one of which he may be referring to. There are several others also, but here is a start. Soldner, Hasenohrl, Gerber, Hilbert, Grossman…

@Siotu, BF, Serbian Girl, Robert. These unfounded accusations of plagiarism against Einstein have nothing to do with science but much to do with virulent and politically orchestrated anti-Jewish feeling in proto-Nazi Germany of the 1920s. (Except for Serbian Girl, where the feeling is less antipathy to Jews and more defense of Mileva as a Serbian heroine.) I recommend once more the detailed examination of Esterson below, who has refuted every claim of documentary evidence re Mileva’s co-authorship of the photoelectric paper, intelligent and progressive though she undoubtedly was; nor have the above detractors brought forward a single link which does more than rehash the well known and well attested fact that “invariance was in the air”, part of the zeitgeist of physics and mathematics at the time; Whittaker might have mentioned the unjustly neglected work of Oliver Heaviside, a brilliant simplification of Maxwell’s equations as well as a precursor of special relativity; but none of these precursors pulled Maxwell’s and Curie’s ideas together into modern physics as Einstein did. It is sad to see this resurgence of crude Judaeophobia which helped to bring Hitler to power and thus precipitated WW2 with a mass slaughter even greater than that of WW1.

In the present regrettable resurgence of Hitler’s “New World Order”, where the MSM have once again become mere propaganda outlets, it is wise to be skeptical of Public Broadcast Service, likewise BBC. There is a need to maintain Scholarly Standards in Feminism:

My play The Dicethrower shows a “parallel” Mileva far more intelligent and sympathetic than the cardboard cutouts of current PC LGBT Feminist propaganda handed out by PBS and BBC; and it gives the very words of those eminent German scientists who defended Einstein against contemporary Judaeophobic (but in the 1920s distinctly non-Feminist) accusations of plagiarism. But in my view The Einstein Case has more to do with the inscrutable workings of Providence than with psychology, science and politics as commonly discussed.

You write, “These unfounded accusations of plagiarism against Einstein have nothing to do with science but much to do with virulent and politically orchestrated anti-Jewish feeling in proto-Nazi Germany of the 1920s. (Except for Serbian Girl, where the feeling is less antipathy to Jews and more defense of Mileva as a Serbian heroine.)”

Right. So now you are making a somewhat gauche attempt to smear me with the ol’ anti-semitism name calling. What a guy!

Read what I wrote again and, if you really must post again, address the point.

I am telling you that you ought to have had the civil decency to have asked the original poster to whom he was referring. He could have elaborated and then you could have checked BEFORE making critique. I do not know to which scientist he was referring and neither do you. I did raise that there are quite a few possibilities to review (by the way not all of them were promoted for anti-semitic reasons as you asserted). But no. Instead you smear and boost and self-promote…

Not impressed.

Try to do better.

And if you do, please do that without personal attacks. That goes for both of you and everybody else involved in this discussion.
Thank you
The Saker

My protest against the above attempts to discredit Freud and Einstein as Jews is not personal but political. The very first comment above, by Joy refers to “the Luciferian cabal”; the second one, by Ray, says they were promoted as geniuses to boost the myth of Jews as a superior race; the third, by B.F, says they had the backing of the Zionist media. Then comes the accusation of plagiarism by Robert to which I reply. And the reason I reply is precisely because the accusation — that Einstein the “rootless cosmopolitan” Jew had stolen the idea of a German physicist, Fritz Hasenohrl fallen patriotically for his country in WW1 — was a stock topic of the proto-Nazis of the 1920s who brought Germany so much grief. My play The Dicethrower dramatises one of those proto-Nazi rallies, their attempts to brand Einstein as a plagiarist of Hasenohrl and a “publicity hound”, and their rebuttal by the great German physicist and courageous anti-Nazi, Max von Laue. It is indeed distressing to see these malicious distortions rising from the grave in which they have lain for so long.

You suggest Grossmann along with Hasenohrl as one of the German scientists whom Einstein might have plagiarized. Marcel Grossmann was actually a Swiss Jew, and if you read The Dicethrower you will find that their collaboration was much closer and far more surprising than those simple minded stories of plagiarism.

If you are interested in the great debate between Freud and Einstein “Why War?”, broadcast shortly before WW2, the Dicethrower has that too. It shows Freud as a tough minded scientific psychologist — not his usual public “image”.

As regards the pathetic fabrications by BBC and PBS re Mileva, l must refer once again to their detailed and pains taking refutatiot by Esterson. The irresponsibility of the MSM is by no means a new phenemenon; this Feminist distortion is only a modern version of an annoyance which dogged that “plagiarist and publicity hound” throughout his career.

The following question by Jimmie Moglia may be one of the most important challenges facing humankind.

” How can so many people be persuaded to practice self-destruction?”

The controllers of the Mainstream media (including institutions of organized education, schools, the various Hollywoods making movies, television, radio, etc.,), have been quite persuasive over the centuries, until the
present day.

The Great Freudian Sexual Political Purge of 2017

We currently are witnessing a Great Political Purge in America, where Men’s (straight men), sexual morality is heavily criticized, (these men are slandered), as a way to remove them from positions of influence.

Hollywood Oligarch, Harvey Weinstein, promoted a movie that is slightly sympathetic to the Palestinian people. His one decent act brought his house down.

On cue, Weinstein was convicted by the Zionist (mainstream) Media, of various sexual improprieties. At last count, Weinstein has been accused by 850 women, of having been raped, or otherwise molested by him. *Somewhere along the way, I lost precise count of Weinstein’s accusers; the number of accusations may be slightly fewer.

Senator Al Franken, was convicted of nothing; and he resigned his prestigious office quicker than the French Army surrendered in World War II.

Head of the Democrat Gang Black caucus, John Conyers, resigned after sexual harassment charges were aired in the media, (Conyers claiming he resigned because of his advanced age).

Dustin Hoffman has come under fire, Matt Damon; and some Hollywood women, who criticized Weinstein, have been attacked for not criticizing him in strong enough terms.

On the Republican Gang side, one Southern politician lost his electoral campaign for Congress because of his being convicted in the Democrat Zionist controlled media, of sexual no-nos. Casino Trump has been forced to dismiss a few more Republicans of media ill repute.

Yes, humans, (many of them Jews) are being framed. Hmm! Dreyfus? – Just what am I doing defending Jews? I am highly embarrassed and may be expelled from the Anarchist Collective. Read my lips, these individuals are not moral saints; but they are innocent of what they have been accused of. None have had their “day in court.” We witness a Night of the Long Knives – Rothschild style.

We are witnessing a Purge, with accompanying Fanaticism that reminds of Orwell’s description in his “1984.” The sexual fanaticism of the purge is slightly different from the hail of gunfire that overthrew our Republic on November 22, 1963, -in the first modern ‘Arab Spring;’ the utilized fanaticism might be referred to as the “Freudian Touch” of the controlling Zionist/Rothschild and assorted “BIg Brother” Oligarchs. Weinstein and Franken and the others live, but their careers/lives are ruined.

Polanski is in exile for his revelations of Pedifilia amongst our local Oligarchs – “Chinatown”.

And… and… and… none in our so-called political ‘Libertarians’ have recognized the political Purge, and the associated housecleaning, which is the largest political repression to hit America since that terrible day in Dallas. The Purge of 2017, may presage a further housecleaning on the part of the not always stable Zionist Banker World Controlling Oligarchs. They may be setting the stage for the dismissal of Nixon-er. Casino Trump.

What they (and it is They), wish for the future is a fine question. Freud was, and remains, one of their tools.

Possibly, the American People may -Refuse to Self-Destruct- and respond, Restore our Republic, with our Sovereignty, and our Honor.

‘Read my lips, these individuals are not moral saints; but they are innocent of what they have been accused of. None have had their “day in court.” We witness a Night of the Long Knives – Rothschild style.’

I have no idea whether these people are innocent or not. How can I?

Perhaps it should read, ‘ … but ARE they innocent of what they have been accused of?’

For, no, they have not had their ‘day in court’.

Trial by media

… the #metoo twitter witchhunt where a man is simply guilty by being accused. And, no, not one of those women would tell a lie ….. no no no ….

“30 years ago he touched my tits. Hang him, hang him! ….. sob”

I am not defending men ….. I am defending everyone’s right to have their day in court BEFORE any media coverage.

The backbone of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

“Perhaps it should read, ‘ … but ARE they innocent of what they have been accused of?’”

I believe they, Weinstein, Franken, Dustin Hoffman, and several on the Republican side – Are innocent of what they have been accused of in the Mainstream Media. That is my judgement, and your hedge. Certainly, in the light of the overwhelming Media Barrage, (where there has been intimidation, and, or, no one has been quoted, or allowed to utter a word in their defense), one might be led to place some credence on the charges.

The article by Moglia – “The Fraud of Freud,” brought to mind the use of sexual (and Freudian) imagery as the attention getter in the American political scene as the latest wrinkle in furthering Big Brother’s political control of our Post Republic, by Purging all those doubters in high positions.

Moglia’s article is a warning of our loss of Freedom, of Liberty, of Humanity. The decline of American political culture, by, in this case, the direct use of sexual imagery, sexual fanaticism, is no little thing. It is significant, just how few have noted the American Political Purges of 2017. We might recall the days of ‘Red Baiting’ Purges and the murder of the Rosenbergs, and imprisonment of others, and the intimidation of an entire post-WW 2 generation; these are the times of the sexual, Freudianesque political purges of 2017.

Yes, Weinstein, Franken, Hoffman, and the others purged, and accused, without trial, must be defended as-is. Just as Durruti’s Anarchists defended an imperfect Spanish Republic as-is. Later, Franken, and the other politicians (almost all of them), must be placed on trial for their Actual Crimes (mass murder, treason, felony theft, and a few others).

One of the best labels for these feminist charges against men is ‘Indecent assault’. However there is a time limit on this criminal act of 15 years as per the State of Victoria’s Crimes Act. Please also note that Australia follows the British legal system as does America, and there would be similar riders for this offence in those jurisdictions.

Thus when one studies the various charges against such men as Robert Hughes, Rolf Harris, where most of the charges were over 20 years old the charges should never have been considered. This may also explain why Rolf Harris was released from prison last year, but the general public has been refused a proper explanation.

What is most heinous is the fact that our court system would even consider such charges as there is virtually no way to disprove them.

And as for all those various actresses claiming to be assaulted, they too were well aware of what was expected of them to win a role in a film, play or whatever, as Marilyn Monroe stated after she was given her first film contract, that she would no longer have to suck cocks.

What we are seeing is the results of Friederich Engels work; The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

This guy’s channel has a lot more. As always, it’s important to discern the wheat from the chaff.

It’s all about occult inversion and alchemical blending of the opposites in order to satisfy their bloody overlord Baphomet. And boy, they have to have real fun knowing that millions of real guys are unknowingly masturbating over trannies… :-D

“We currently are witnessing a Great Political Purge in America, where Men’s (straight men), sexual morality is heavily criticized, (these men are slandered), as a way to remove them from positions of influence.”

I’m afraid you’ve bought the generalized MSM narrative of ‘naughty men (of all stripes) in power’ when an inconvenient ethnocentric truth lurks beneath these earnest attempts to cast universal aspersions.

Predominantly, we are witnessing the recently enfranchised apostate/secular Jewish male acting out his revenge fantasies on the previously verboten Shiksa. To be sure, there are goys in the mix, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose, etc. but why shouldn’t there be in a nation that claims a 98.2% non-Jewish population? Read Philip Roth’s ‘Portnoy’s Complaint’ a scandalous book in 1969. Weinstein is Portnoy fully given over to his nihilistic sexual fantasies. Portnoy Resolved.

No less than Mark Oppenheimer, an Editor at Tablet (!) magazine notes the, “specfically Jewy perviness of Harvey Weinstein”. To his great credit, Oppenheimer refused to remove the editorial despite a firestorm of criticism from Tablet’s readership.

Essay 2 proves to be more than a little prescient given all that we would learn in the weeks ahead about Dustin Hoffman’s alleged practices.

Contextualization is a powerful media tool. Sometimes a wide-screen lens will do. Other times, a narrow gaze is offered us. Fortunately these framing decisions are falling back into our own hands as we each serve as programming directors for our own media menu.

I am convinced the Torah is a supernatural document and am privileged to have been made privy to many of its lesser-known secrets by very some close Israeli students. So I am miles away from seamy Antisemitism. Nonetheless I wonder about Jewish apostates, those who had the temerity to turn away from G-d’s word and, in their dispossessed spiritual state, strike out to visit their desolation on a larger often hostile population.

The last forty years of Jewish ascendancy in America is neatly foreshadowed in the final scene of The Graduate (1969). Will Jewish assimilation finally resolve into a toxic exceptionalism bordering on pathology (Neocon-ism) or will Portnoy recoil from his adolescent perviness and embrace the larger population with mutuality and respect consistent with the Jewish People’s sacred calling to be ‘a light unto the nations’?

“The decay of moral values in all areas of life — the period of deepest German degradation — coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.” — Dr Friederich Karl Wiehe, Germany and the Jewish Question.

“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. SHOW HIM NO PITY. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.” –Deuteronomy 13:6-11

I find myself increasingly in a binary cul de sac –G-d and not G-d –the rigors of which I could never hope to fulfill in a thousand years. Only Grace will see us through.

I’m acclimating to the logic of the zealot. Culture is the devil’s playground.

As reprobate belief systems jostle with one another, dialectics spawns new confusions. What can two estrangements beget but an even stranger estrangement? The validity of eschatological progression ‘feels right’ since clearly there is no possible way back. The crows have dined on the breadcrumb trail. So we must make our bed in the Dark Forest.

History is an eschatological convergence on maximized chaos and toppled ideologies where only The Prince of Reprobates is left standing.

Well, which one makes more sense? :)
——
“I’m acclimating to the logic of the zealot.”

That’s the wagon I would like to spend the rest of my earthly journey in. However painful or solitary at times…

Psalms 69:9For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
———-
“What can two estrangements beget but an even stranger estrangement?”

Bastardization, chaos, confusion and all desctructive forces/trends follow the entropy law – it grows and multiplies. Cancer.
And the Mystery Babylonian Whore is subtle and confusing Witch:

Proverbs 5:5-6Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. 6 Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them.
———
“The validity of eschatological progression ‘feels right’”

According to the Scriptures I perceive history as a cyclical phenomenon escalating on the finite Beginning-End timeline.

Ecclesiastes 1:9“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

“since clearly there is no possible way back.”

Well, we are qualitatevely coming back to the days of Noah and here is the old-new MO of upcoming generation(s):

Genesis 6:5
“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
———–
“where only The Prince of Reprobates is left standing”

His Grand Finale is at hand, that’s for sure. But this false “Prometheus of enlightment” and phony “angel of light” will bow before the Allmighty at the end.
It seems to me that the “gates of hell” will be opened using technology (quantum computers, CERN). I call it Techno-Witchcraft. And scientists themselves are using weird language when talking on these topics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFDqS7CC75w)

Sorry for the length. I can’t resist certain topics and love the Scriptures’ lens :)

The “light” is not the light of the secular/assimilated/reformed jews.
The “light” is the one shining from the Torah (Written Law) and it’s associated explanations (Oral Law). So, if you want to search for it, it’s among the torah-observant public, an more specifically those who are not “religious-zionists”.

Regarding Polanski:
I think Chinatown probably relates to the Wrigley family.
I watched the movie for the first time about maybe 7 years ago and that was the first time I saw Catalina Island on TV.
then about a week later, a friend who designed the master plan for Catalina ecosystem brought me along with him to the island. We had a lunch at the original Wrigley mansion – and I met one of the Wrigley’s great grand daughters and befriended her and stayed at her house overnight. We even went underneath their family crypt (for the first time ever – we found the long lost key)
I saw photos of her great grandmother etc and she told me she actually did not get as much money as others in her family. She told me her great grand mother and Wrigly had a very strange feud (and she sounded a bit embarrassed about it) – it really reminded me of the movie and I thought she could be that actual character from the movie.

I could not agree more with the above excellent and most revealing comments by Joy and Ray – Freud is in the company of some of the biggest frauds of all time – not to mention his sexual perversions. In fact “Fraud” rather than Freud is more appropriate – a true “Freudian slip”.

Jimmie; I always enjoy following your mind and I believe your valuation of Freud is basically correct, along with the impulses of those who have commented so far.

However I am convinced that it is of vital importance that we refrain from judging psychology and psychoanalysis in general on the basis of Freud. To do that would be to commit the intellectual error of judging a thing by its distortion.

Far better in my opinion is to grasp the wonderful work done by one of Freud’s students. That being Carl Jung.
Jung broke with Freud for substantially the reasons outlined by this essay. In my studies of Jung I have found his work to be authentically scientific and intellectually respectable as well as embracing of the spiritual and cultural dimensions in an honest and holistic manner. Jung’s approach, as he puts it “puts the psyche (soul) back in psychology.” And he does it in a way that respects the requirements of the modern scientific approach.
I have found that a rigorous study of Jung’s approach opens a pathway to the effective understanding of the massive crisis now confronting global humanity. It also points a clear path to the resolution of our current crisis. So, rather than letting Freud’s mental inadequacies poison our attitude to depth psychology I suggest we can resolve our current collective crisis by embracing and including the positive developments in transpersonal depth psychology.

Snow Leopard,
I agree with your last paragraph but I would say the crisis is in the West animating it to project it on the rest of the world.
Here is an example: a NATO general said that ‘Russia is an existential threat to our whole being’. He is unconsciously projecting the absolute evil side of the self onto Russia allowing the absolute good side of the self (Jung and von Franz said an archetype splits as it approaches the subconscious) to animate thoughts from the back of his mind. This is using Jung’s work on the opposites in the psyche which is at the center of his work.
So animated by what can also be called the good side of God he can do no evil to crush the existential threat since he is doing the work of God. They use jihadis, fascists, nazis, and mass murder to sow immense suffering, death, and destruction, and call it responsibility to protect, or building democracy. They do not see any contradiction since a god cannot be in contradiction; they are in unconscious identity with God.
Jung’s work led me to understand the importance of the unconscious in human action and simply listen to the unconscious speaking out of mouths. I hear the crisis coming out of mouths in the West, but hardly in the East. Jungian analyst Edward Edinger said that in our time the archetype of the apocalypse is coming to all of us. Few see this happening in the West as most are unconscious of it which allows it to split like in that NATO general.

Arius Armenian; Nicely said and thank you. You echoed my thoughts very well. I think your observations hold the key to understanding the psychological dimension of what the Americans call “Russia-gate.” The Neo-Cons can’t actually accuse the collective unconscious i.e., (the people) of upsetting their control of the last election.
That however is their real terror. So they project blame onto their own chosen surrogate for the unconscious. That being Russia. This accounts for the virulence of the accusation. And then we find that political representation of the European unconscious (Russia) rising into union with what Jung called the geographic representation of the Inner Self, namely the “China-Tibet-India axis.” I believe we can see the emerging outlines of a geopolitics of the Christian apocalypse. Despair – surrender – liberation. For me the cultural pathway forward is found in Jung’s psychoanalysis of Christianity. Christianity was Jung’s final patient. Are you familiar with it?

@Snow Leopard: ” the wonderful work done by one of Freud’s students. That being Carl Jung.” That Jung was a student of Freud, who began to eclipse the Master, could explain why Freud they eventually quarreled. One of them wrote to the other, “No gentleman would have your subconscious”. It was probably Freud: according to Freud the unconscious of the ordinary decent man wants to kill his father and bed his mother; so this could be quite an insult from Freud to Jung.

I have Jung’s last? book, on Flying Saucers. It starts with the usual complaint of a great man in the modern age: a complaint against being repeatedly, casually and deliberately misrepresented by the MSM. Then he goes on to examine the myriads of cases where normal people have testified that the most abnormal things happened to them at the hands of extra-terrestrials who emerged from flying disks. The Collective Consciousness: how does lunacy become the normal state of an entire community?

American Lunacy. A good question indeed. My answer is a culture seriously ungrounded, yet at the same time reaching for the transcendent, whilst trapped in an ungrounded condition. It reminds me of the myth of Icarus. With regards to Jung and flying saucers; the way I read it Jung was merely using the collective fascination with flying saucers to talk about something he considered much more important. He saw what he called the archetype of the Self being unconsciously projected by observers onto their images of flying saucers. He was trying to talk about their unconscious rather than what they thought they saw in the sky. The key for Jung was that the saucers were either round or cigar shaped. He saw these shapes as classical representations of the archetype of the Self. This emergence from the unconscious he saw as the decisive factor. At the end of his life Jung was optimistic. This was because he saw an increasing use of the symbol of the circle in contemporary art. The restoration of wholeness from the unconscious.

@Snow Leopard. So according to Jung the search for flying saucers is an unconscious search for psychic wholeness? An optimistic view as you say, bringing a welcome touch of poetry to UFO sightings, which I formerly dismissed as a rather pedestrian modern example of humanity’s age old propensity to collective delusion.

Scientist Jacque Vallee, one of the more listenable UFOlogists, believes many UFO sightings are psychic manfestations that manage on occasion to pierce the physical veil. We may even be unwitting students in an incremental diagnostic program, ‘training us up’ in preparation for a new level of perception. Like Jung, Vallee discounted an overtly physicalist explanation.

GH Pember’s ‘Earth’s Earliest Ages’ (1876) has some fascinating biblical insights into the Lord of the Air and his airborne Principalities. There’s more afoot above our heads than falling bird poop.

There’s a poetry in Jung’s (and don’t forget Otto Rank) thinking that rescues us from Freud’s potty humor for PhDs. The Self is an appetite-laden bastardization of the Soul, the former being perhaps the latter’s lower floor. Bernays played to our lower instincts like a tinpot maestro with the result that, over the last hundred years, the Self has taken over the building.

FSD Re the Self, as per Jung. If you call the self an appetite laden barstadization of the soul, and refer to it as the basement beneath the soul, in critical terms – then I am left with the sense that you are conceiving of the Self in terms very different from Carl Jung. Not being all that familiar with your particular terminology I am left thinking that perhaps you are referring to what the Freudians call the Id. Primal instinctual appetite. In any case Jung wrote that were one to confuse his “Self” with that of the individual ego then one would be left in a “hopeless conceptual muddle.” (His terms) Jung’s Self as I read it is actually the divine universality that is the subjective reality of the universe itself, out of which our souls are born. In Jung, the goal of the soul is to assemble its own wholeness and in so doing become united with wholeness and universality. It is a vision of liberation arising through the soul’s conscious integration with the full value of the unconscious. It is the spiritual definition of full liberation. In Jung it is the Self which is the progenitor of all real religious experience.

Dr M.G. Yes, you are right. There is more poetry in Jung than meets the eye. I have always been fascinated with the American TV Series Star Trek. In that show the real star is the ship itself. Intriguing (and in my opinion mythically revealing of the American psyche) is the fact that the Enterprise is composed of a majestic flying circle. supported by not one but two phallic engines. And then let’s not forget Rodennberry’s original name for the show; “Wagon Train to the Stars.” Suggesting premonitions of America’s quest for a transcendent destiny. In pursuit of which it must lead the world through the seven circles of Hell.

@Snow Leopard. Thanks for your kind acknowledgment that I had sensed, from your explanation of Jung’s “Flying Saucers” the poetry of his interpretation that followers of ETFO are unconsciously seeking for psychic wholeness by incorporation with the Universe. This fits well with the other little bit I read in Jung: his idea of Myth and the Collective Unconscious. In my view, unconscious thought implies conscious thought: it is a two way street. Whitehead says somewhere, that learning consists in moving things from the conscious to the unconscious; for example, you cannot ride a bicycle until you do it unconsciously. There is a log-jam in conscious thought, because it specialises in “clear and distinct ideas” — which are very rare things indeed, very difficult to attain but very powerful once attained. Following this line of thought re Jung, Myth, the Collective Unconscious (and my hypothetical Collective Conscious) it now seems to me that by inventing concrete images in Myth (myth of the heavenly Gods, or myth of the flying Extra Terrestrial Objects) mankind might be striving to drag unconscious feelings about the Universe into the conscious thought of Science.

Dr N.G. Well said indeed! It is good to acknowledge the poetry in Jung. In my opinion the poetry to be found there is so rich that it provides a pathway for the full embrace of the transcendent universal by the modern scientific mind. And designed to be culturally assimilated. It seems to me that it is high time that the political left opened itself to the fundamental insight of Jung that liberation is a function of the action of the unconscious. It is the task of the conscious ego to accept and assimilate it. How can we have liberation without individuation? That is the challenge Jung offers the left. What are your thoughts?

I wanted to come out of my chair after the first few paragraphs. After all Freud’s psychoanalytic method has been largely discredited. By far his most ruinous and far-reaching legacy was his nephew, Eddie Bernays.

Then you got to little Eddie Munster on your own. Goebbels thanks you for recognizing his mentor and predecessor pond scum.

Subliminally rifling the contents of human souls for the irrational bits that covet mountains of belt-busting moon pies is an unholy trespass. God is the one true sorcerer, moving souls as He sees fit to His desired ends. Meanwhile look at the apprentice’s legacy. Bernays’ obese victims are everywhere, barely shuffling along the sidewalk. Yes of course, we’re free to push the table away. But the relentless bombardment is pernicious and sinister. And how else to keep the economy humming along? Bomb factories can only do so much.

Freudian ‘repressions’ are tendrils of the soul flipped on their backs into clinicized pejoratives –hang-ups and neuroses—with pill sales and self-surrender the final goal. The Self is a bastardization of the Soul. But it serves as a neat surrogate for our Masters on Earth.

As for managed democracy, that’s hijacked democracy. You might as well throw Lipmann in there with Bernays. The goy herd must be led along because collective spontaneity would be a king-slayer.
I’m guessing you’ve seen Adam Curtis’ Century of the Self? It’s freely available on youtube.

“A trivial thought expressed in pompous diction, tends to impress more than an important sentiment delivered in simple language; because the number is greater of those whom custom has enabled to judge of words, than of those whom study has qualified to examine things.”

Long before the internet existed and like-minded folks had the opportunity to compare notes and therefore almost effortlessly defrock the full-spectrum hoax-matrix the Jewish Mafia had spun over centuries obfuscating everything real while parading their Jewish actors and their sexy but idiotic masscontrol-memes, Nietzsche came to very similar conclusions – all on his own! – completely shunned by the German intellectual elite (= Jewish Mafia).

Sure, Nietzsche not only mocked the gang of the Chosenites but criticized the Christian mindset, which he considered slavish, naive, girlish and utterly impotent, with even greater passion.

Jewish Mafia suprematism would require a hell of a force to counterbalance it. And what did Christianity? It never even figured out what was going on! And by the time the first Christian ‘saw the light’, it was too late, as the Jewish Mafia had already penetrated all Christian power structures for good.

Nowadays, the Catholic church is a handy asset of the Jewish Mafia, while the Reformation and everything that sprung up from it, including Christian Zionism, are all routine Jewish Mafia operations on auto-pilot.

Thank you for posting this. They are indeed “…practitioners of destruction, of the human soul and body.”

The neoconservatives (Anglo-American-Globalist elites) need Milton Friedman in the realm of Economics to justify the privatization of everything – to be owned and controlled by a few oligarchs, of course. They also need intellectuals in the area of Psychology such as Freud and Kinsey in order to justify sexual perversions:

Anyone in the USA taking a university class in the Liberal Arts or Social Sciences would be exposed to the queer theories and gender studies promoted by such people. Gay activists believe that for a perfect society, all that is needed is to create the right conditions to unlock the innate “inner gayness” hidden in every individual. Such “research” has also led the American universities to establish “all gender restrooms” and require all incoming freshmen to enroll in “cultural sensitivity” seminars.

“As if for millennia various religions had not attempted to address in multiple ways what we can broadly call the dilemmas and of life. For indeed, “Nothing can we call our own but death and that small model of the barren earth, which serves as paste and cover to our bones.”

One night, Jung tells, he dreamed having a stream of water, welling, and after a short distance, he had to
direct it back into the earth again.

Jungs dream-analyses have been in deep and disciplined respect to patient, God and nature … zio hated him and since 1933 and past 1945 in Germany (= America) he was one of “them” no-go- ‘antisemits’ …

I, feel you know about all of that and into my mind comes: time and again I was asking myself, where are all the American ‘Jungians’, where is their voice, where is their perpetuation of Coll. Works: X, “Civilisation in Transition”, or are they the rare (?) but silent cells of health, doing the ‘infinitesimale’ work
like Jung called his’ .

The bunch of the Frankfurter Schule freudians where the priestst of culture

in my country, McDonald debunks them like you are doing with Freud.

And he filled me with horror and respect for the ethnocentric tribe with
3.000 years of tradition of breeding (jewish) super-men, and given of their
family-nets, the world over, and reflecting all the good being nurtured by all
the bad … what did we know about Putin without Nuland? Answer: a case for
journalist, nothing else …

And that is the same with the Saker, McDonald and thinkers like you

you cost old friendships, but give beacons to some more of the lonely crowd

Freud was a fraud. If you want an update on how the scientists are actually running experiments on how the mind makes social reality, read “Subliminal-How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior by Leonard Mlodinow

1. Freud’s cocaine use.
2. The 3rd in the party (… of Freud and Jung) being Wilhelm Reich.

Reich did some useful work but went off the deep end towards the end of his life.

Whereas Jung went into mysticism (dreams and archetypes), Reich continued on the path of sexual pathologies. Applied in Scandinavia (where he resided for a time) a lot of the sexual revolution of the ’60s was based on Reich’s approach.

The US government imprisoned him late in his life, where he died, and destroyed tons of his research materials. (see Boadella ‘Wilhelm Reich: The evolution of his work’, 1973/1985) — mainly, I suspect, due to his experiments (and claims) about weather control and healing.

Eric Fromm (1900-1980) was also an important German social psychologist, psychoanalyst and phylosopher. His book ‘The Sane Society’ (a psychoanalysis of contemporaneous society, written in 1956) can still be read today as if it applies to our time. It is one of those mind-blowing books you never forget.

I personally think the Jordan Peterson is correct when he says this field is more like engineering than science.

From my little bit of delving into the fringes (researching the autism spectrum phenomena) the main focus is in creating a catalog of characteristics (e.g. DSM IV/5 — standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the U.S.) to which practitioners then place patients and apply responses.

Although ‘altruism’ would seem a natural core value, my observations suggest that ‘control’ are dominant features (e.g. State/social and HR etc). Basically mostly priest-craft in modern dressing. Not surprising that those with strong tribal-centric worldviews (including nose fixations and money supply it seems, from above) are strongly represented in this field.

Delightly, and well argued.
Great progression of ideas from the whackiness of Freud to the dangers of the Bernaysian mind control.

Although I don’t think Moglia says this, it does seem as though Freud’s “accomplishment” was to direct a huge amount of attention to the power of the unconscious mind. But it seems like Freud’s idea of how this apprehension could be deployed to control individuals was kind of off track.

That is, he did succeed in wrecking a number of lives. But he doesn’t seem to have seen the true potential and understood the true workings of the unconscious mind as Bernays did. (Which is kind of odd since he lived in the era of Hitler and Goebbels.) Of course Bernays was younger and grew up in an age of more sophisticaed and pervasive mass media and extravaganzas—rife with opportunity for practicing the dark art of mass mind control through suggestion and transference, as Goebbels had successfully done. Freud’s clinical scope was the individual. With Bernays (and Goebbels) the practical scope opened out to more effective social and political control.

Still, it bears noting that the Habsburg administration was well known for its pervasive and effective secret service and espionage.

Freud’s merit is that he was the first who posted a modern theory of how the human mind works. His work has been corrected on a lot of fronts. Yet no alternative similarly comprehensive theory is available. That – and his guru-like behavior – explains a lot of his continuing popularity.

More recently (1997) there is that book Fashionable Nonsense, by physicist Alan Sokal, based on a hoax he performed by sending a nonsense post-modern piece on physics, full of gibberishto a reputed literary journal and having it published.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

DR. KR BOLTON has doctorates in theology and related areas, Ph.D. honoris causa, and certifications in psychology and social work studies.

He has been widely published by the scholarly and broader media on a variety of subjects.

He is a ‘contributing writer’ for Foreign Policy Journal, and a regular writer for New Dawn. Books include: Revolution From Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd., 2011), Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (Black House Publishing, 2012), ‘Introduction’ to Oscar Wilde’s The Soul of Man Under Socialism (Black House, 2012), with books pending on the conflict between tradition and counter-tradition, and psychopathy in Left-wing politics.

Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie Moglia, comrade Moglia, remember when our old country had still a culture? Before the colonial takeover of our minds, hearts and souls by that supremacist pirate trick born of WASP and Judaic infamy also known as Anglo-Zionist Globalization? There was one of our finest troubadours called Rino Gaetano, who in one of his finest songs, wrote one of his finest lyrics in which one of the finest sentences translates into English approximately as “my brother is an only-child because he is convinced you can live 100 years without having read Freud”… Here it is for you so that you can share with me a ‘goombah’, as they say in both Anglo-stans (yours and mine) of Great Turtle Island, a tear or two of nostalgia and a boatload of outrage at what they in cahoots with our cultural Quislings have done to us.
Happy New Year comrade Moglia, Saker and all the merry men and women of the ‘sakerista brigade’.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgaGPuLDBG4&index=1&list=RDZgaGPuLDBG4

“Freud appeared to have a conscious hatred of religion – both Orthodox Judaism and Christianity. In 1937, when he was urged to flee Nazism, he responded that his real enemy was the Roman Catholic Church. Interesting enough, his childhood hero was Hanibal, the Carthaginian besieger of Rome.

In an interesting work entitled The Freudian Fallacy, E M Thornton wrote: “Freud’s concept of the unconscious must be attributed to his cocaine usage. Death wishes, infantile incestuous desires and perversion are not the pre-occupations of the normal mind. Constantly recurring throughout the drug literature are the same words and phrases used by Freud and his followers to describe his concept of the unconscious mind. In both psychoanalysis and this literature the same metaphors of looking down into an abyss occur.” “

After all, in The future of an illusion, Freud wrote: “Among the instinctive wishes of mankind are those of incest, cannibalism and lust for killing.” And in his famous Interpretation of dreams he wrote: “I was making frequent use of cocaine to reduce some troublesome nasal swellings.”

““Among the instinctive wishes of mankind are those of incest, cannibalism and lust for killing.”

This sounds pretty grotesque.
Interesting that he places “incest” first in his list.
Since, as Moglie points out, he later stepped back from this and made the victim into the perpetrator, in the form of his monstrous theory that the child wanted to be sexually abused by the parent and had fantasies of such.

For a very effective demolition of this whole mendacious and suspicious construct of Freud’s, I highly recommend a six-part documentary about Vladimir Nabokov and his Werk, called The Lolita Riddle. I’m not sure how I ended up viewing this—possibly a link somewhere on this thread. One of Nabakov’s targets was Freud. through his literature he sought to thoroughly debunk Freud and expose his mumbo-jumbo, especially as it concerned so-called infant or child sexuality.

I think if you watch this last, summing up, part, I believe you will be compelled by intellectual curiosity to start at the beginning, with part 1, “Introduction”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spTUa41pzoY
.
This is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking items I have ever encountered. A real accomplishment of scholarship, documentation, and video production, incluiing some very interesting and informative animations. The material on Shirley Temple is explosive and raises a pretty big question in my mind as to the extent to which the current obsession with Weinstein’s and other’s advances toward grown women doesn’t also function as misdirection from paedophilia in Hollywood and elsewhere.

I have been enjoying your pen Mr Moglia, but I have to ax you something…

Nice for you to try and open our collective eyes over these shenanigans, but please, try to use one of the greatest functions of our brains, namely, the ability to draw conclusions, to summarize, to simplify…

I would ax you to solve the following riddle for me:

What do all the above rascals have in common?
And – can we expect anything else from them?

Thank you, Anonymous. As a solver of riddles I confess myself useless, for I am overwhelmed by what King Lear called “the mystery of things.” More mundanely, however, I suspect that if these rascals (appropriate term,) realized what they do, they would also cease being what they are”

Freud was a brilliant thinker like Marx. Marx was also a deadbeat and received money from Engels. This had nothing to do with their contributions. The author also uses the term collective consciousness … which sounds more Jungian.

Jon Rappoport has been writing much the same comments about Freud and the whole occupation of Psychiatry, for many years, perhaps 38 or so -explaining simple things with complicated terms, and vice-versa, inventing a solution to an imagined problem, with absolutely no evidence to support it.. I believe the scientist/author, Arthur Koestler, did also. Sad to admit that I have quoted Freud hundreds of times in my lifetime, Bernays, too.
This was worthy article, glad the Saker included it. -JoeB

So true. Only people who are wizards with numbers have brains. The rest of us are sub-human frauds.

Yes of course the worship of Freud is overstated – personally I prefer Jung by far – and on top of that Freud seems to have been a deeply rotten human being – but he was a seminal thinker who helped humanity begin to come to terms with the layeredness of the human mind.

The most annoying thing about the ‘soft sciences’ is that they really should not be regarded as sciences at all. They have much more in common with the humanities. They are more like philosophy and literature than they are like, say, physics. When they ape science they tend to become evil.

It’s a waste of time to post this, but I shall.
I am not Jewish, but am severely distressed that the original piece on Freud was seen as an invitation by many to lash out at Jews or something like a Jewish Illuminati that somehow rules the world. I have seen this time and time again on this site. It reminds me of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Anyone who’s read that book will realize almost immediately what nonsense it is.
Sometimes, I think the people who are obsessed with Jew-bashing are actually working to discredit anti-Semitism, by taking excellent points such as the original article raised, and then foaming at the mouth about other Jews, Jews in general, etc.. It reminds me of the saying, “With enemies like this, who needs friends?” and also of the saying, “Better to make a stupid person your enemy than your friend.” Such diatribes merely play into the hands of those who, in turn, automatically dismiss any criticism of anything or anyone Jewish as “anti-Semitism.”
It’s especially interesting that some commentators dismiss Freud because he was critical of religion—as though being critical of religion is automatically discrediting. Or they dismiss him for being obsessed with sexual matters. Freud may have been aberrant, yet could still have had some quite valuable insights on these matters. (His belief that we humans seem to have an “instinct” for killing each other seems well borne out by the historical record. Yet, some commentators apparently dismiss him for that belief.)
I am no fan of Freud—or Jung, or of the so-called “science” of mental health. For one thing, the insights offered by “mental health professionals” usually were offered by novelists, poets, etc., anywhere from decades to millennia ago. But that hardly means the headshrinkers are incapable of developing intellectual food worthy of thought.
And—as seems to always happen—the commentators again went far afield, to air their own pet peeves. I do wish people would stay on point.
Paul Craig Roberts does not have a comments section. I think he made a wise decision, with that. I no doubt will be told that I don’t have to read the comments section. And in fact, I no longer shall. The occasional nugget just isn’t worth the trouble of sifting through all the mud, gravel, and fool’s gold. It makes me sad that the typical comments have the effect of severely diminishing the quality of this site. If the NY Times ever runs a piece about The Saker, it’s a safe bet the piece will quote heavily from comments, as a way to make The Saker himself look like a nut case for the fact that the thoughts of the commentators are typical of his fans, and reflect on his own acumen (or lack thereof).

I don’t think that anybody is under any obligation to like anybody, including Jews. Furthermore, I don’t think that anybody is under obligation to like all Jews, including many famous ones. I don’t see anything wrong about mentioning that somebody is Jewish, even in a negative, critical context. To me, none of that is racism or “anti-Semitism” (which, by the way, is an utterly nonsensical term). As for the Protocols, I think that they are much too interesting document to be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, they deserve a serious investigation. As for what the NYT would write about me, I will say this: blaming me for the comments section is guilt by association or guilt for non-censorship anyway. Besides, even 911 truthers (which I am) are now called ‘anti-Semites’ and even “Holocaust deniers” so at this point, I am beyond redemption from the point of view of the Empire. And I really don’t care.
Look, I defined racism here: http://thesaker.is/moderation-policy/ and my personal attitude towards Jews here http://thesaker.is/terminology/. Bottom line is simple: Jews are human, like all of us. ANY denial of that, be it by Jew-haters or Jewish supremacists is racism and it is banned on this blog. Other than that, Jews, just like any others, are a legitimate target for fact based and logical criticism.
I want this blog to remain a place with the political correctness of our times is not imposed on others (I would sum up this PC like this: spew hatred on all religions but don’t dare criticizing atheists or Jews). Finally, I don’t believe that “attitude towards Jews” is the single most important topic in the universe. Frankly this is the very least of my concerns. I owe them nothing – other than treating them just like any other fellow human being – and neither does anybody else.
My 2cts.
The Saker

The MSM probably will never do that, they will never want to publicize websites like The Saker. Their main aim is to keep the masses trapped in the matrix.

But your comment does match with most of the attributes of a Hasbara troll that Jonathon Blakeley describes in his guide to hasbara trolls. You even used the second type of trolling technique that Jonathon Blakeley describes, ‘the Guilt by association’ technique which even The Saker pointed out.

“I am not Jewish, but am severely distressed that the original piece on Freud was seen as an invitation by many to lash out at Jews or something like a Jewish Illuminati that somehow rules the world.”

I too observe the ‘invitation’ you speak of which, I agree, hovers in the air whenever Big Ideas gets passed around. And yes, it happened here again, as it so often happens across many venues.

But I think ‘invitation’ mis-characterizes the phenomenon. This particular elephant seems to await us in every room as though it’s build into the epistemology of the joists. Thus it is inaccurate to suggest people are ‘dragging’ the debate into this corner. If you were to put a marble on the floor, it would roll until it found precisely this spot. You’re substituting an epistemological feature of the room with an ad hominem attack. I’ve no doubt the people who provide the floor hope for a fair game. Clearly the room has other ideas however.

People set off to talk about One Thing. Invariably someone else pipes up, ‘no, there’s a Second Thing happening.”

One of the most disturbing and irreconcilable books I ever read on this subject is Jewish Zionist Maurice Samuel’s ‘You, Gentile’. There are two antithetical world-views afoot in the (Western) world today (Jew-Gentile) of which one, and one alone, will lay final claim to that world. Importantly, this is a pre-WW2 book (1924):

“A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world. In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure.” –You, Gentile, 1924

As a Christian, it bothers me not that these two great secular word-views will never meet fully reconciled in Paradise. All earthly struggles will be gloriously superseded at the end of history anyway. Yet it doesn’t bode well for comity going forward, in whatever remains of human history. Who could cheer that?

Then there’s the new Wolff book, released just today, that quotes Kissinger’s characterization of the Trump White House as, “a battle between the Jews and non-Jews.” [Caveat emptor. Wolff is known for embellishment and fabrication.]

ReIf the NY Times ever runs a piece about The Saker, it’s a safe bet the piece will quote heavily from comments, as a way to make The Saker himself look like a nut case for the fact that the thoughts of the commentators are typical of his fans, and reflect on his own acumen (or lack thereof).”

The intent of this commenter or at least of his comment is very suspect.
The Saker should muzzle members of this community in order to make a good impression the MSM??? Because the MSM is known to cherry-pick in order to reinforce their own propaganda message? And so, there shouldn’t be any comments to provide food for distortion? That is the thinking? Poor Mr. Ronin is frustrated that he has to read comments that do not meet his exacting standards!!! BTW, though I don’t like to make accusations of troll-hood, Mr. Ronin’s comment does exhibit one of the classic symptoms of aconcern troll, the “I’m just worried about you/your site” trope. Lol.

It looks like David Ronin (where have I seen that name? It looks familiar, for some reason) obviously sees himself as one who is able to separate the good from the dross, unlike other commenters and readers of this site. IMO it is not the just The Saker’s own analyses that create the value of the site, but the creation of a group of people who, taken together, do a pretty good job in many instances of “crowd” thinking and rumination that some “alternative” futurists dream of but cannot figure out how to get to.

Look into your own heart, Mr. Ronin. Is that jealousy? A competitive feeling? A superiority complex? Want to be accepted by The Saker as one of the special intellects? Some months ago the idea of labeling some commenters as better and more valid than others was lofted, and was rejected, I believe by the Saker community or possibly just by The Saker. ASAIK, anyone who adheres to the basic rules is free to comment.

Look into your OWN mind and heart, David Ronin. And, maybe, keep to yourself what you see there!

I am a jew by choice (convert). I read regularly The Saker website for interesting analysis. But I am also appalled by the jew-bashing (I mean bashing all the jews, generally, without nuance) that invariably appears in the comments section once there is anything jewish in the original article.

And it was good to remind of the Saker’s words and the contempt he has for them. I just wished jew-haters would be banned has he mentioned, but in reality.
Again, nobody needs to be a jew-lover. I also condemn jews like Freuds, Madoffs, Trostkys, Kissingers, and others. Even the Saker explains in his first book that when he speaks abouts the Anglos-Zionists, he refers to a very small (but influencial) minority of both groups. But clearly, there are some people here who have an obsession with the jews.

It is OK to speculate and write and study the influence of specific Christians and of Christianity on Western thought. Views run the gamut from extremely negative to extremely positive.

It is also OK to speculate and study and write on the influence of specific Jews and Judaism on Western thought.
Views run the gamut from extremely negative to extremely positive.
Any of this writing may be dismissed as being Christian “bashing” or Jew “bashing.”

Although Jews have for a few thousand years made a point of preserving themselves and their group as a specific collective with a special identity apart from other groups and religions, many Jews view it as verboten for non-Jews (and also Jews) to view Jewish culture and thinking the same way that they themselves do.

A critique of basic Jewish values and beliefs and practices, not to mention actions carried out by the Jewish state of Israel in the name of the Jewish religion and its adherents, is disallowed through use of the label of anti-semitism.

I know my comment will be seen as harsh and will be interpreted by all the jews as bashing all the jews. Frankly speaking, I am also sick of all the jews getting offended when I condemn Israel, it’s zionist policies or when I speak of Hasbara trolls. Why do Jews get offended when I say that I reject the concept of the chosen ones when this concept is clearly racist, that the US foreign policy for Mideast is Zionist and is dictated by influential zionists and that it is no secret that most of the US media is controlled by the Zionist jews. I have never come across a muslim getting offended when I say that their Wahhabi ideology is offensive.
Instead of complaining you can take the initiative of rejecting the negative perceptions that people have about jews, you can start with condemning Israel.

And don’t expect from me to add a disclaimer every time I comment about jews and israel that I don’t mean all the jews.

Now let me ask you: what in the world did you expect the rest of us, semi-bestial goyim, all deserving to be slaughtered for the crime of “idolatry” to have to say to you?! Did you really think that mankind would give you a standing ovation? That your deliberate and voluntary acceptance of, and adherence to, a religion which preaches hatred for all of mankind and, I would argue, of God Himself, would earn you a lovefest!?

You have the right to your own choices, but since that choice is a choice, it is a totally legitimate target for criticism and even condemnation. There is absolutely nothing racist in the following statement: “modern Judaism, which ought to be called rabbinical Talmudic Phariseeism, is a satanic cult whose main goal is to take revenge on the Creator by destroying his creature“. This statement can be wrong or right, but in no way can it be considered racist.

In this aspect, modern “Judaism” (the religion of Maimonides, Karo and Luria – not the faith of not of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is unique in its hateful nature. Nobody forced you to endorse it or join it. Now you have to live with the consequences of your choice.

My thinking, too:
Why in the world would anyone *convert* to Judaism who didn’t have to (say, to please a prospective spouse)?
Quite apart from the (to me) unappealing “chosenite” belief system, why would an adult male inflict circumcision on himself and accept such power over his person exercised by a bunch of self-appointed old men?http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/q-and-a/a5753/adult-circumcision-0509/
One could believe the beliefs of Judaism without officially converting. It is an action of conscience

The only reason I can think of for officially converting to Judaism is the benefits that accrue, such as maybe free or subsidized housing in Israel and access to special Jewish social support systems in the USA.
Katherine

why would an adult male inflict circumcision on himself and accept such power over his person exercised by a bunch of self-appointed old men?

The only reason I can think of for officially converting to Judaism is the benefits that accrue, such as maybe free or subsidized housing in Israel and access to special Jewish social support systems in the USA.

They who run the publishing houses, newspapers, movie industry, etc. keeps to themselves the bewitching power of narrative. This has only become truer in our age of immersive media where social media handily abets the distribution process, ensuring there are few respites.

As Mr. Moglia says above, “Those who “control and regiment the masses according to their will without the masses knowing it,” understand that Bernay’s formula can only be successful if no different or dissenting voices are heard.”

There must be a singular, enforced narrative otherwise unwanted dialectics are sparked by competing counter-narratives (antitheses) and the regimented movie plot spins out of control.

A boy reaches across the desk aisle to punch another boy. The struck boy retaliates just in time for the teacher to turn from the chalk-board and observe the second punch. The first boy immediately cries out, ‘teacher he hit me!’

The injured party is often the injurer.

There are many narratives in popular culture where Scene One has been edited out and Scene 2 becomes Scene 1. Alt-media has done much to unearth a lot of previously discarded Scene 1’s. The human story is being fleshed out like never before. We’re being bombarded with fresh, revelatory material and there is a palpable hunger for it.

To quote Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe: “the media is so so so powerful”. That’s hardly an exaggeration.

now, to get the stink of freud out of our nostrils, lets have a piece on the interesting relationship between Jung and Pauli (Quantum physics).

[..Pauli was sort of a guiding force for the scientists seeking to go beyond the atom. Jung may have had some influence on Pauli getting a handle on perception. (It became apparent that the ability to penetrate into the essence of reality was related to our psychology of perception.)
Eg. Tau is the essential whole, which we perceive in manifestation yin/yang terms. (eg. an explosion of energy .. we experience it in terms of force/velocity) This can relate to the scientific experiment: ie: we perceive a scientist and apparatus experimenting on a subject, believing they are distinct.. But the underlying reality is that there is an unbroken whole underlying scientist/subject. The scientist and apparatus (regardless of thoughts/hopes of not influencing the subject) are part of the subject being examined. ..] ..

.. hmm .. anyway .. it’s worth an article, i reckon. It might go some way to explaing why the fraudulent feudian mindset propaganda/color revolutions/military brandishing/etc attempt at US world domination is having the effect of crippling and corrupting the US itself.

Psyche and matter, as a “matrix”, are both an X – i.e., a transcendental unknown quantity and thus indistinguishable in conceptual terms, which makes them virtually identical; only on a secondary level
they are different as different aspects of being.” (‘Atom and Archetype’ 2000, p 126)

‘Psyche is for me, as you know, a general term indicating the “substance” of all the phenomena of the inner World’ ( p. 125)

“Psyche could be placed parallel to the physical term of matter (corpuscle + wave). Like matter, psyche is also a matrix based on the mother-archetype. Spirit in contrast, is masculine and is based on the Father archetype, in consequence of which, favored by the fact that we are living in a patriarchal age, it claimes precedence over both the psyche and the matter. But with Sophia as his consort he also has a feminine aspect, which emerges more clearly the closer one gets to the unconscious. ” (p.126)

“Among the things that are part of the substance of the psychic are psychoid archetypes.” (p 126)

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.